• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

And The Favored Status Begins

No, that's you're rationalizing on the uneven bars. They aren't able to marry within a 100 miles, why? Because they are gay.

So that makes discrimination against them okay?

No. Societal norms were and are such which didn't see homosexual marriage as a right. It had to be recognized as such. Your thinking stems from the faulty logic that society must conform to outlier rather than the outlier conforming with society.

No, it stems from the the fact that the genders must be equal under the law, and any prohibition on same-sex marriage is gender discrimination. Gender discrimination violates decades of American jurisprudence -- so outlier my ass.
 
That premise is even false. The whole "marriage has always been a heterosexual union" is historically false. Same sex marriages occurred in the Christian church until the 13th century. In fact, if you go back far enough you will find that two different Roman emperors had same sex marriages. In a sense, gays are taking back rights that were stripped from them centuries ago.

But thank you for abandoning your bullcrap, "everyone is free to marry anyone" stance for your real stance. I knew eventually someone would draw it out of you. Less and less the "independent" that you claim to be and more and more the social conservative.


It seems because I won't agree with you that you want to take your ball and run home. You don't respect my opinion and what I find to be a suitable common ground, you want me to succumb to your world view. Won't happen no matter how hard you stomp your feet and hold your breath. You don't like to hear the word "No", I know, sucks don't it?

This now comes to the conclusion of our correspondence on the matter as all you seem to be wanting to do is to goad me into some sort reaction. Perhaps so you can feel justified in your ill conceived opinions. I'll not be part of that, thank you very much.
 
So that makes discrimination against them okay?

The discrimination is against heterosexual service men.

No, it stems from the the fact that the genders must be equal under the law, and any prohibition on same-sex marriage is gender discrimination. Gender discrimination violates decades of American jurisprudence -- so outlier my ass.

I'm not repeating what I said thrice, my position stands
 
It seems because I won't agree with you that you want to take your ball and run home. You don't respect my opinion and what I find to be a suitable common ground, you want me to succumb to your world view. Won't happen no matter how hard you stomp your feet and hold your breath. You don't like to hear the word "No", I know, sucks don't it?

This now comes to the conclusion of our correspondence on the matter as all you seem to be wanting to do is to goad me into some sort reaction. Perhaps so you can feel justified in your ill conceived opinions. I'll not be part of that, thank you very much.

What world view? I haven't posted ANYTHING in any thread I have interacted with you about my world view. I would not waste my time. Your entire argument in this thread is a STRAW MAN. You are claiming that gay people believe any form of discrimination is wrong. Gays didn't ask for or make this policy and yet you want to blame gays for it because you are politically biased and have made generalizations about all gay people and you refuse to admit it.

The real question is whether this policy is reasonable and justifiable discrimination or is it discrimination just for the sake of prejudice or tradition. When you are ready to be an adult about it, I will take your opinion seriously, but when when you make statements like "gays claim to want..." you lose any credibility.
 
Nope. Mostly older ones. They don't seem to put up with that kind of bull.

what kind of bull?... a young Marine trying to get over on the system and get some free days off?..... that's true, we salts wouldn't let it fly.... but we'd sure as hell try it when we were young.

I'd do anything legally within my power to get more leave time when I was a pup.... in heartbeat. (in the sunset of my career you couldn't pay me enough to take leave)
let me marry a buddy and get a free week..with all the benefits of other married Marines??... .****, sign me up.
as long as it wasn't mandatory to be gay to marry someone of the same sex, I would have been on board in a New York minute.
 
what kind of bull?... a young Marine trying to get over on the system and get some free days off?..... that's true, we salts wouldn't let it fly.... but we'd sure as hell try it when we were young.

I'd do anything legally within my power to get more leave time when I was a pup.... in heartbeat. (in the sunset of my career you couldn't pay me enough to take leave)
let me marry a buddy and get a free week..with all the benefits of other married Marines??... .****, sign me up.
as long as it wasn't mandatory to be gay to marry someone of the same sex, I would have been on board in a New York minute.

Glad to hear the Marines are inspiring such professionalism.
 
well, don't let me ruin your world vision by letting you in on the fact that we also like to get drunk, fight, and chase women... why we'd surely miss having your "respect"

Fair enough. Forgive me for being a dick.
 
The discrimination is against heterosexual service men.

No it isn't, because heterosexual service members can get married wherever they want, whereas in some (most) circumstances homosexual service members have to travel to get married.

I'm not repeating what I said thrice, my position stands

I'm not asking you to repeat anything, just defend your position. If you can't do that, that's not my problem.
 
No it isn't, because heterosexual service members can get married wherever they want, whereas in some (most) circumstances homosexual service members have to travel to get married.



actually, it is the DOD discriminating against heterosexual servicemembers.....it's the DOD giving 7 extra days of leave for a marriage that opposite sex members aren't availed to.

I understand that SSM folks can't run down the block to get married... but that's not the DOD's doing.

what they should do is perform the services on base ( a federal jurisdiction).... they should not be giving discriminatory benefits.
of course, they could allow those 7 days to opposite sex marriages as well... that would be fine too.
 
actually, it is the DOD discriminating against heterosexual servicemembers.....it's the DOD giving 7 extra days of leave for a marriage that opposite sex members aren't availed to.

It isn't just for getting married, it's for being able to get married. It would only be discrimination if the service members were serving somewhere they could get married already.

I understand that SSM folks can't run down the block to get married... but that's not the DOD's doing.

Of course not, which is why I would've had a serious problem with this if the DoD was compelled by a court.

of course, they could allow those 7 days to opposite sex marriages as well... that would be fine too.

I'd be perfectly fine with on-base marriages, provided that every state is obligated to respect them. Well, I take that back -- provided that every state is as obligated to respect them as they are one another's licenses. I have no idea if a homosexual couple married in New York will have their license respected in the other 49 states.
 
The US Department of Defense has announced plans to offer special marriage benefits to same-sex couples—exceeding the benefits currently offered to heterosexual couples.

The Pentagon has said that a member of the armed service will be given 7 days of paid leave to travel to a state that allows same-sex marriage. The benefit will be expanded to 10 days for those serving overseas. This benefit is not available to service members planning heterosexual weddings.

Pentagon plans special bonus for same-sex marriages : News Headlines - Catholic Culture

One thing leads to another

Before you know it, doctors will be giving more health care to sick people
 
No it isn't, because heterosexual service members can get married wherever they want, whereas in some (most) circumstances homosexual service members have to travel to get married.

Because that is the law. You don't go giving special privilege to people because they seek to engage in activities which are currently illegal. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. I mean seriously....



I'm not asking you to repeat anything, just defend your position. If you can't do that, that's not my problem.

No one is so blind as he who will not see...
 
What world view? I haven't posted ANYTHING in any thread I have interacted with you about my world view. I would not waste my time. Your entire argument in this thread is a STRAW MAN. You are claiming that gay people believe any form of discrimination is wrong. Gays didn't ask for or make this policy and yet you want to blame gays for it because you are politically biased and have made generalizations about all gay people and you refuse to admit it.

The real question is whether this policy is reasonable and justifiable discrimination or is it discrimination just for the sake of prejudice or tradition. When you are ready to be an adult about it, I will take your opinion seriously, but when when you make statements like "gays claim to want..." you lose any credibility.

The straw man is your baby, not mine. Nothing in your first paragraph holds a shred of truth.

There is no justifiable discrimination that's your baby again crying for equality and then trying to justify that some discrimination is OK.

You're the only one throwing out ad hom's man...:lamo

Jesus H.

To you I say good day!
 
The straw man is your baby, not mine. Nothing in your first paragraph holds a shred of truth.

There is no justifiable discrimination that's your baby again crying for equality and then trying to justify that some discrimination is OK.

You're the only one throwing out ad hom's man...:lamo

Jesus H.

To you I say good day!

Proved my point. I am not arguing for "equality". Why would you assume I would? That is your value not mine.
 
Because that is the law. You don't go giving special privilege to people because they seek to engage in activities which are currently illegal. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. I mean seriously....

Great, so let's outlaw heterosexual marriage in those 37 states. After all, if you allow a man and a woman to get married but not two men or two women, that's gender discrimination and therefore illegal. It shouldn't even be up for discussion, right?
 
I wasn't aware I claimed to? I was speaking in a general sense but haven't made any point of showing that this affects me.
....right.

You have basically been criticizing the pro-homosexual side of the argument by presenting the heterosexual side. You claim heterosexuals are being oppressed because they are being pulled down by policies which grant homosexuals a privilege. Could you please explain how heterosexuals are being oppressed by slave morality because homosexuals get a few more days?

Getting special privilege isn't earning anything.
They willing served a country which shunned them for decades. I'd say they've earned it.
 
Baloney!

Every other military person that wants to get married has to take time out of their accrued leave and they manage to get it done just fine. This just goes back to the whole "It's not equal treatment you want. It's special treatment."


My wife and I didn't have to take any leave to get married. We were stationed at NATTC Millington, TN when we were married. Since I'm from New York and she is from the west coast our family traveled to TN for the wedding.


(Just pointing out that "Every other military person that wants to get married has to take time out of their accrued leave". On top of that my Dept. Head approved a 48 Special Liberty pass to bump up against a weekend for 4-days off with no leave. We planned our honeymoon for later in conjunction with PCS travel.)


[DISCLAIMER: I disagree with the policy being gender based, I think the policy - if there is going to be one - should be that ANY couple seeking to Civilly Marry should be able to receive such leave if they cannot legally marry in the state where the military members is stationed. Then if an 18 year old has to travel to NH to get married because the age of the future spouse makes it illegal in - say - Florida, but is legal in NH, then they should qualify also. IIRC, a 13 can get legally married in NH with permission.]


>>>>
 
Thanks for the link, I mean I beleive they did it, but I think it is unbelievably bad move.

Yep, I understand it, but I don't agree with it. Any encouragement to command authority to approve leave for purposes of Civil Marriage (with an exception for scheduled operations) to be charged to the individuals leave account - applicable to all - that's fine. Maybe 4-days travel time (applicable to all) from overseas locations, ya that's fine. But only for Same-sex Civil Marriages? Na, that's not a good thing.


>>>>
 
I still cannot believe they did it. This is a dumb one. Morale killer.

I don't disagree, but I don't really see it being a huge or signifigant problem.

I don't know how things were or are in the Corps, or in all branches of the Army for that matter, or how things might have changed between the early '90s when I served an today.

But in an Infantry unit during my period of service we were already dealing with two classes of Soldier, those who were married and those who were not.

The benefits and priviliges extended to married Soldiers were numerous, not even remotely "fair", and completely overt.

Married Soldiers were more-or-less "unofficially" excluded from Company, Battalion, and Post duties on holidays and long weekends or periods of block leave. Married Soldiers were excluded from many inspections (personal equipment). Married Soldiers were rarely given duties that would keep them past 16:30 COB unless those duties were related to unit training. Married PFCs were allowed POVs (cars for you civilians reading this) where as single Soldiers were not. There were plenty of other "some Soldiers are more equal than others" examples but that's a pretty good list off the top of my head.

Did it impact on morale?

Sure, a little bit.

But it didn't stop us from getting the job done.
 
Back
Top Bottom